State v. Swain
| Decision Date | 22 May 1934 |
| Citation | 147 Or. 207,32 P.2d 773 |
| Parties | STATE v. SWAIN. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; George R. Bagley Judge.
On petition for rehearing.
Rehearing denied.
For prior opinion, see 31 P.2d 745.
William B. Murray, of Portland, for appellant.
Lotus L. Langley, Dist. Atty., and Charles S. Cohn, Deputy Dist Atty., both of Portland, for the State.
In his petition for a rehearing and the brief accompanying it, the defendant contends that the evidence fails to support our statement (concerning the sale of stock to Karl Nelson) that "the contract governing the sale was drafted and signed by both parties in Oregon." Not desiring to sponsor a decision based upon an erroneous conception of the facts, we have again examined the transcript of evidence and shall now endeavor to show that our above-quoted statement is supported by competent, substantial testimony. It will be recalled that a series of advertisements appeared in Portland newspapers under the caption of "Business Opportunities" which offered employment to those who applied at 401 Dekum building, on condition that they make financial investments with the prospective employer; that Karl Nelson applied at the designated address; that he purchased 20 shares of stock in the corporation described in our previous decision; and that he was given employment. The defendant's brief states: "The record shows that a contract was drawn in Oregon." Thus, one portion of our quoted statement is given support. He argues, however, that the evidence fails to show that the contract thus drafted concerned the sale of stock. Since the trial court, upon the defendant's objection, excluded the challenged contract from the record, its language is not before us, but testimony given by Nelson in which he related the incidents which occurred upon his first visit to 401 Dekum building is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kuhnhausen
...by the ministers of justice * * *.' To the same effect see State v. Lee, supra; State v. Swain, 147 Or. 207, 214, 31 P.2d 745, 32 P.2d 773, 93 A.L.R. 921; State v. Clark, 86 Or. 464 at page 473, 168 P. 944; Pines v. District Court, 233 Iowa 1284, 10 N.W. 574. The point need not be labored f......
-
Pines v. District Court in and for Woodbury County
...v. New Jersey, 175 U.S. 172, 174, 20 S.Ct. 77, 78, 44 L.Ed. 119; State v. Gaetano, 96 Conn. 306, 114 A. 82, 15 A.L.R. 468; State v. Swain, 147 Or. 207, 31 P.2d 1745, 32 P.2d 773, A.L.R. 921), most of the states included a similar provision in their constitutions. See note to Nixon v. State,......
-
State v. Glushko
...defendant “absented himself from court and stayed away.” Similarly, in State v. Swain, 147 Or. 207, 211, 31 P.2d 745, on reh'g, 147 Or. 207, 32 P.2d 773 (1934), the defendant was charged by information with the unlawful sale of securities. He was shortly after extradited to California, wher......
-
State v. Kuhnhausen
...it must be read into and considered a part of the constitutional guaranty. State v. Swain, 147 Or. 207, 214, 31 P.2d 745, 32 P.2d 773, 93 A.L.R. 921. The command of the statute is mandatory. If a defendant be not brought to trial at the next term of court in which the indictment is triable,......